Cargando…

Writing superiority in cued recall

In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fueller, Carina, Loescher, Jens, Indefrey, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3798867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24151483
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764
_version_ 1782287825507450880
author Fueller, Carina
Loescher, Jens
Indefrey, Peter
author_facet Fueller, Carina
Loescher, Jens
Indefrey, Peter
author_sort Fueller, Carina
collection PubMed
description In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3798867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37988672013-10-22 Writing superiority in cued recall Fueller, Carina Loescher, Jens Indefrey, Peter Front Psychol Psychology In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3798867/ /pubmed/24151483 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764 Text en Copyright © 2013 Fueller, Loescher and Indefrey. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Fueller, Carina
Loescher, Jens
Indefrey, Peter
Writing superiority in cued recall
title Writing superiority in cued recall
title_full Writing superiority in cued recall
title_fullStr Writing superiority in cued recall
title_full_unstemmed Writing superiority in cued recall
title_short Writing superiority in cued recall
title_sort writing superiority in cued recall
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3798867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24151483
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764
work_keys_str_mv AT fuellercarina writingsuperiorityincuedrecall
AT loescherjens writingsuperiorityincuedrecall
AT indefreypeter writingsuperiorityincuedrecall